Snjo

Have you tried storing values in a PartModule on the exterior part of thew cockpit? Just a simple holder class with a few persistent kspfields in it

The fighter and bomber wings have FAR values (the jet wings aren't working quite right with FAR), but since the lift produced by FAR's lift calculations is different than stock, the Center of Lifgt will move around in relation to the Center of Mass, and even the Center of Drag. Therefore, any pre made craft will usually have to have the wings moved a round a bit to get back in line. A plane with CoL far in front of the CoM will often flip out immediately on take off. When I tested it, the K-17 bomber actually flew pretty well as built with FAR. If you tried the latest pre-release and used the special aero wings, those have not been tested with FAR at all yet, so all bets are off.

Yeah, it's one I made for KerbTown, but launching on alternate runways is broken in 0.22, so it doesn't do much good at the moment. Everything else works though, like the fuel pump I made, and other static objects.

Right, I knew about 00 and 01 for different distances, but not the last one. So if you can't use it, how do you add it to your camera on the monitor rendering? I have done multiple overlaid cams in unity, but in that case I am free to copy or move them around. Can you point me to the magic code? Couldn't see it in the source at first glance.

How did you get the proper sky colour in the camera? I've tried CameraClearFlag.Depth, Skybox etc, but it all comes out with no sky. I don't see any reference to that stuff in the code, so I assume you set it up correctly in Unity.

whoa! That is amazing luck! I will delve back into this beast and test that fix, thank you so much! Yup, that worked! now I just gotta mash it toghether with landscape camera 2, and fix the rotation on the targeting cam. News from a very different era:

I was testing stuff, and removed them, they were rotating the ailerons on the wrong axis. I asked Ferram about it, but he couldn't see where the error was. And now I think I've lost the values they had... If someone has a set of wings with the values still in the cfg, feel free to post them.

I think roll can be done via rotating left and right engines in opposite ways, yaw can be done with thrust variations left and right (KSP is super sensitive to it), and pitch can be done with opposite front/back roll. I guess it won't work too well at the halfway point though I'll add it to my list of things that are Nice To Have.

Does it? It's not a bug, it's a feature. Did you find the rainbow unicorns yet? For each monitor to work, they would all need their own cameras, but they only have one to share.

Nah, that's just its position in the cockpit. It's possible I removed the camera from the model.

You could just replace one of the FSpropMonitors instances with FScockpitTV in the apache cockpit cfg (Or add one with the same coordinates perhaps to keep the frame there still) It's a cool thing, but it doesn't work too well though, the draw order of the objects is inverted for some reason: Target a vessel to point the camera at it. (if it still works...)

Oh, I guess I forgot to include that, since it was initially only used on a single heli rotor. Coming right up! ... and done. Pre-release v5.7 New: -Added new custom lift code. Used on wings marked Special Aero. Configurable response to axis and flap commands on each movable section. (Click the wing in the hangar action group editor) -The special f-86 wings have working flaps/air brakes and better leading edge slat lift (Auto deploys based on speed/AoA). -Added action groups to increase or decrease the hover height in VTOL/heli rotors. Issues: -The lift indicator in the hangar may not be accurate. Still working on it. -Still tweaking the lift positions and strength of the lift components on the various wings. Download full Firespitter Download the dll only

I assume the pWings modify the stock wing module's lift values based on size if it's present. If you wanted to use FSliftSurface as an option on the pWings, it would be a simple matter to alter the public floats span and wingArea. But of course, it would also want a central lift transform...

KSC would be screwed if the dead started rising. You all know what you have done to those poor Kerbals!

That was truly amazing! I'm still waiting to see the movie, cause it's not out here yet, but now I don't know if I can stop myself from flashing back to the Kerbal version in the middle of it

I wouldn't mind in the slightest

Is Halloween still going on? No? Dammit!

I'm gonna make a way to put this guy in the cockpit when it's occupied and the camera is external, and hide him when the cockpit is empty or the camera is IVA. That way, You will still get all the benefits of an IVA cam instead of a kerbalSeat which has none, while also providing the proper amount of dashing. While I'm sure you could also apply the jacket and pants on a normal kerbal like universe replacer does, and possibly also replace the helmet with goggles, that's for some other crazy late night coding binge. I think I gotta figure out mesh deforming animation now to make that scarf move in the wind

Your story reminds of the good times I've had doing polar runs with that plane. The trip to the north pole with drop tanks landed me some 50km shy of the pole, but the south pole trip was a roaring success, getting down there with a little bit of fuel to spare. Ran a few cool physics and camera experiments down there (wind and cardinal direction test etc.) That break in the black line in the snow? That's the pole exactly. Does weird stuff to you if you walk over it! About gull wings - I think your suggestion is by far the best way to handle it. Trying to make a single wing that will work, with that bend in it just isn't doable. an extender is the only good option given the symmetry rules. Biplanes? - Yes, I want to do more of those parts. Stuff that's obviously just cloth over wood, strut connectors that look like ropes or wooden beams, open cockpit with a Kerbal sporting a white silk scarf? Yes Just gotta get around to it.

There are three ways to handle engine efficiency, Stock engines have the velocityCurve and the atmosphericCurve. The velocityCurve is nice, it basically sets different thrust levels at different speed, so for instance at 0m/s you have 100% thrust, at 100m/s you have 90% thrust, and at 200m/s you have 10%. I use this to limit top speed, just like you see in jets etc. The atmosphericCurve is really dumb in most cases. It lowers the ISP of the engine at different altitudes. While that sounds nice, it does nothing to your thrust output, so the result is just that you drain fuel super fast all of a sudden when you reach a certain altitude. I don't really use this, cause I have a better method. The FS Atmospehric Nerf lowers the thrust output of the engine as the air gets thinner. Since these are propellers, their efficiency is directly related to the atmospheric density. If the air is thin, you get less thrust, but without the fuel just draining straight through the engine. To make things more stable, there's a service ceiling option that halts this reduction in efficiency until you reach a certain altitude. (And a way to make it super efficient in the denser atmospheres on Eve) So the answer to your question is, yes, the stock engine module handles this effect just fine if you set the values properly. (If you meant the effect of the propeller spinning too fast, that would really just mean you have an engine with a lower max thrust, right?)

The thrust and lift numbers are all basically evolutionary. The first thing I made was the radial engine, and it needed to be fast enough to take off with a small single engine plane, but not fly stupid fast. To make bombers work, I tuned the wings and engines again so that it would fly well with four engines on them. For the Lancaster engine, I threw that thought out the windows and just gave it lots of power cause I know people want that, so it has something like 4x150 thrust. Maybe 150 thrst isn't a lot compared to a Mainsail, but as you said, these ain't jets. For a more powerful radial engine, I'd like to do a new model on the casing at least, so that it's a bit heavier and longer, so it could house one of those massive engines, but still attach to a regular round piece of course. Maybe throw in my particle fx code on it. Now that I can make more consistent lift values, I will set up a new set of bomber wings with the proper span and surface area, and we'll see how much lift they would actually give in comparison to a smaller wing. My plan for the wings with new lift code is to release them as an extra, not replace the existing wings. This is because they require a bit more setup if you are using a wing in the "wrong" place. An aileron will only respond to pitch by default, and you have to alter its response values if you want to make it work as a rudder or flap instead. More power to you, less convenience Setting up a flapperon. GUI is still a bit rough.

If you need some small change in the FS code to make this work better, let me know.

It's always on my mind ID has made great strides with his weapons. I'm planning out a bomb dropper rig in my head that will spawn bombs that are depleted from a resource pool, instead of having to be attached one by one in the hangar. The missiles from way back are no longer made the way I want them to be made, so I'll have to do that code from scratch before I'd be happy to release it. They should both use a lot of the same code though, so when the bombs get done, that's 2/3 of the missile code done too. The earlier versions of FS are not compatible with KSP 0.22. I don't know of any general conflict issues, but the engines do alter the stock engine module's maxThrust, so if you have another mod that plays with that value, it might be an issue. None of the code in my engines touches stuff outside their own part, so if other mods mess with my parts, that's rather rude If you have a mod or tool that has edited the cfg files, that could also cause weird stuff. So, try the latest FS version with KSP 0.22.